About your Search

20130318
20130326
Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4
, immigration and defense cuts. with republicans like these, who needs democrats? it's thursday, march 21st and this is "now." >>> joining me today, rick hertzberg of the "new yorker," former dnc communications director and msnbc political analyst, karen finney, editor of the "new york times" book review, sam tanninhouse and executive editor at msnbc.com richard wolfe, next week the supreme court is taking up two major cases on marriage equality. the constitutionality-the-defense of marriage act and california's prop 8, which prevents same-sex couples from marrying. in recent history, this has been an issue that breaks along party lines. in recent days, the view on the right has become increasingly hazy. as a reminder, this was the official republican position at their convention last summer. we reaffirm our support for a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. but leading figures in the gop appear to be coming around to the idea of marriage equality. some like rob portman have changed their position for personal reasons. and others, like raince pri
. and how much somebody like rand paul can move the party on defense spending for example and on the reach of u.s. involvement in the world. and i don't rule it out. i don't rule out that there will be movement. in fact in both of those directions. it will, however, be in the context of this, you know, clan warfare and rival warlords, whatever you like to say. >> people wearing war paint the raince priebus document is just full of incredible nuggets in terms of what they think they need to do. one of them is the minority vote. and what remains unclear is let's say they move on gay marriage. let's say they have a more progressive immigration stance. does that actually win them black voters? right? they're like dispatching teams of minority outreach people to presumably brooklyn to get back voters on board. and i will read this -- >> they will spend all $10 million right in brooklyn. >> but in the "daily beast" this nail it is it, republican probably overestimate the traction thooerl get from changing the color and accents of their pitchmen. the gop's assumption that while its voters are mot
. he describes the policies that are in there. it's a fair defense on both sides that these are budget documents, and god forgive the budget community do what the ways and means committee -- we don't need that food fight. i get that. they've laid out three times in the house what they believe the budget to contain in terms of policies, and i think the senate should do the same. >> let me ask you, michael steele, jeff sessions, the top republican on the budget committee said it may not offer a -- sessions praised the house budget chief -- that's paul ryan -- as honest and wonderful, but said senate republicans, quote, might have different views on how to move forward. this is an interesting thing. this implies there may be some liability on signing on. >> i don't think he's looking as it so much as looking at it in terms of other opportunities that may want to emanate from the senate side. realize you have chuck schumer leading off this segment for the first time talking about a democrat budget in five years. thank you very much, but all of that praise for a budget now, where were you i
't want him telling them what food to eat. they sure don't want him telling them what self-defense firearms to own. he can't buy america. >> bloomberg and lapierre may be using the same rhetorical strategy, proposing that the american people are on their side. but one argument seems to be based on facts and evidence, and the other appears to be based on -- the opinion of wayne lapierre. recent polling shows that between 85 and 91% of americans support background checks. but the trouble for wayne lapierre doesn't end there. he seems to be suffering from amnesia. when he was pressed on background checks yesterday, 2013 wayne lapierre squared off against 1999 wayne lapierre. >> the whole thing universal checks is a dishonest premise. there's not a bill on the hill that provides a universal checks. criminals aren't going to be checked. they're not going to do this. >> we think it's reasonable to provide mandatory instant criminal background checks for every sale at every gun show. >> gun safety reform remains at the forefront of president obama's agenda. buzz feed reports he will hit t
Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4